I listened to this podcast and Danielson had a pretty good theory. A lot of teams over the last few years have been looking for a way to beat Bama and tried following the Manziel/dual threat/scrambling making plays type QB and offense. Because of that those same teams have lost physicality and even though that type of QB and offense may give Bama trouble it can hurt you throughout the season because you rely too much on finesse and not knocking people off the line of scrimmage. Kirby Smart told him you have to run the football to win not only because it helps your offense but it helps your defense to practice that way and be physical. He also said LSU just doesn't have the players and let Troy beat them physically up front. Maybe Bielema has the right idea but just can't get it to work due to lack of quality lineman? I still think the dual threat QB helps you on offense with the threat of the run but you have to get a push up front.

Playing uptempo spread football allows teams to minimize the importance of winning the line of scrimmage and playing defense. This is an equalizer for middle tier teams when facing the elite. The problem is it opens the door to losing to lesser talented teams just as easily. It is preferred because it's a system that can be built quickly. The end result is a lot of mediocrity throughout the conference.

There is no evidence to support his theory. The only teams to beat Bama in conference lately have been up tempo, spread the field teams (Auburn, Ole Miss twice and almost a third time). Clemson almost beat Saban two years ago and did beat him last year. Oklahoma did the same in the Sugar Bowl a few years ago.

Meanwhile, no one but Ohio State has lined up and overpowered Bama. We always talk about the talent LSU can recruit, but they have become irrelevant playing power football.

There is no evidence to support his theory. The only teams to beat Bama in conference lately have been up tempo, spread the field teams (Auburn, Ole Miss twice and almost a third time). Clemson almost beat Saban two years ago and did beat him last year. Oklahoma did the same in the Sugar Bowl a few years ago.

Meanwhile, no one but Ohio State has lined up and overpowered Bama. We always talk about the talent LSU can recruit, but they have become irrelevant playing power football.

LSU beat Bama a few years ago. We have gone toe to toe with them recently, just not over that hump. Auburn, ole Miss, and Clemson all were very physical teams WITH an up tempo offense.

No matter the style you plan football, the game is won on the line of scrimmage. Simple as that. IMO setting the QB in shotgun gives him an immediate reaction to what the line is doing and allows for decisions to be made 1-2 seconds quicker which is crucial against Alabama's Dline play. Teams that have done that just also happen to run spread, uptempo offenses, so they are just using every advantage possible to them to win a football game. The thought here is though, if you can beat the Dline up front, then you can run a variety of things, but how often to we see Alabama's Defense getting pushed around like LSU was last weekend? Hardly ever, the last time that happened was the second half of the Natty Title last year and Clemson did what ever they wanted.

There is no evidence to support his theory. The only teams to beat Bama in conference lately have been up tempo, spread the field teams (Auburn, Ole Miss twice and almost a third time). Clemson almost beat Saban two years ago and did beat him last year. Oklahoma did the same in the Sugar Bowl a few years ago.

Meanwhile, no one but Ohio State has lined up and overpowered Bama. We always talk about the talent LSU can recruit, but they have become irrelevant playing power football.

I figured most of Hogville would blow this theory off because they so desperately want a dual threat run around like it is the schoolyard offense. Never mind the fact that the only teams that beat Bama did not just have dual threat Qb's, those qb's were very very good. Watson of Clemson is already starting in the NFL, and it took everything Clemson had to win that game against Bama.

That type of offense needs an elite qb suited for that offense, and they still need pieces around them. Arkansas can run any offense it wants but until they start getting players as good as the upper tier teams, on offense AND defense, the results will be about the same as usual.

I agree with you Hogsanity but Watson is exactly the type of QB I like, He was a dual threat in college and could either pass it efficiently or run it with a zone read or QB scramble.

He is the kind of QB EVERYONE likes, an there are about 1 of them in each recruiting class, so the odds of having one like him are pretty slim. The thing about Watson is he is a passer that just so happens to be able to run and create. He would be a very good nfl Qb if he never ran at all, he is accurate, can read defenses and has a strong arm.

Hogville will want to ignore this, but there is a lot of truth here. Most other P5 coaches, when asked why the SEC was so dominant, would tell you it was the physical play on the LoS that set them apart from the rest of football. As a conference, we have lost that edge in our efforts to beat Alabama.

Hogville will want to ignore this, but there is a lot of truth here. Most other P5 coaches, when asked why the SEC was so dominant, would tell you it was the physical play on the LoS that set them apart from the rest of football. As a conference, we have lost that edge in our efforts to beat Alabama.

The Manziel effect?

Logged

hogcard1964

Hogville will want to ignore this, but there is a lot of truth here. Most other P5 coaches, when asked why the SEC was so dominant, would tell you it was the physical play on the LoS that set them apart from the rest of football. As a conference, we have lost that edge in our efforts to beat Alabama.

I think in our case, there's too many holes to pinpoint exactly what it is. Our defensive secondary is too slow, we're not big enough to run the 3-4 effectively and our wide receivers have some serious issues. That's without touching on his recruiting and coaching issues.

Hogville will want to ignore this, but there is a lot of truth here. Most other P5 coaches, when asked why the SEC was so dominant, would tell you it was the physical play on the LoS that set them apart from the rest of football. As a conference, we have lost that edge in our efforts to beat Alabama.

Was it lost in an effort to beat Bama, or was it lost because it is harder to find players to play that style because so many HS coaches have gone to "finesse" offenses that they just are not teaching kids to play a physical style.

I think in our case, there's too many holes to pinpoint exactly what it is. Our defensive secondary is too slow, we're not big enough to run the 3-4 effectively and our wide receivers have some serious issues. That's without touching on his recruiting and coaching issues.

I didn't realize Alabama was having those kind of issues. They've looked great when I've watched them this season.

There is no evidence to support his theory. The only teams to beat Bama in conference lately have been up tempo, spread the field teams (Auburn, Ole Miss twice and almost a third time). Clemson almost beat Saban two years ago and did beat him last year. Oklahoma did the same in the Sugar Bowl a few years ago.

Meanwhile, no one but Ohio State has lined up and overpowered Bama. We always talk about the talent LSU can recruit, but they have become irrelevant playing power football.

But your theory is rubbish too. Show me any team, dual threat QB or otherwise, that has beaten Bama without an above average Defense. If spread and Dual threat is all that matters , MSU would have gotten lucky once in the 4 years Dad Prescott was QB. Auburn with the spread they have has beaten BAMA how many times? Clemson is still 1 out of 2, and that is with a moth to prepare and the whole Lane Kiffen crapola last year. Oklahamoma's sugar bowl win was pure letdown by Bama, the team looked listless, but that doesn't fit your narrative does it/

Was it lost in an effort to beat Bama, or was it lost because it is harder to find players to play that style because so many HS coaches have gone to "finesse" offenses that they just are not teaching kids to play a physical style.

Most kids that want to play college football at a high level are already physical. There was a highly rated OL a couple years ago that I believe went to Ole Miss bc he thought their style would be physically easier on him to get to the NFL. Think he was from Texas.

I've wondered if our style of offense has hurt our defense, since we don't practice against lots of spread, RPO, no huddle offense -- sure we have our scout team, but we're not doing it all spring and summer.

I remember Frank Broyles saying, when we dumped our signature passing game between 1972 and 1973, and went to a version of the wishbone, that he had to do it because we couldn't beat wishbone triple option teams because we couldn't practice against them well enough.

Seven on seven, focusing offseason prep to perform well in combine-like drills in elite camps for recruiting purposes, the attack in general on the game of football itself, which is leading to pillow fight practices, and the proliferation of successful (to a point) spread offenses, have changed the high school and college game for all but a few. But the game itself at the championship level hasn't changed much.

Dual threat QBs and physical football are not mutually exclusive. The ability to run the football effectively for four quarters and in the red zone, great defense, and great special teams are still what it takes to win championships in college football. And yes - the most important pieces of the puzzle are the players on the field.

But your theory is rubbish too. Show me any team, dual threat QB or otherwise, that has beaten Bama without an above average Defense. If spread and Dual threat is all that matters , MSU would have gotten lucky once in the 4 years Dad Prescott was QB. Auburn with the spread they have has beaten BAMA how many times? Clemson is still 1 out of 2, and that is with a moth to prepare and the whole Lane Kiffen crapola last year. Oklahamoma's sugar bowl win was pure letdown by Bama, the team looked listless, but that doesn't fit your narrative does it/

You have just listed your unfounded, speculative opinions (Clemson had a month to prepare so that is why they beat Bama, Bama didn't want to be there when they played Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl) as proof that everyone else is FOS in their "narratives" and you are right.

Let me ask you two questions.

1. I listed several teams that have beaten Alabama by stretching the field and playing up tempo. You proceeded to try to explain away every one of those losses. Okay, smart guy football genius, why don't you list all the teams that have lined up, overpowered, and beaten Alabama in the last five years? Surely if you are correct you will be able to give examples.

2. At what point did I say anything about not needing a defense? Why do you think the only way to have a good defense is to have a ground and pound, three yards and a cloud of dust offense?

The reason the SEC is down is that it has lost so many outstanding coaches and replaced them with...well, you fill in the blank.

Florida lost Urban Meyer and is on their second mediocre coach since he leftSouth Carolina replaced Spurrier with Boom MFer, whose next decent QB and offense will be his firstArkansas replaced Petrino with first John L. Smith and then "I'll just keep trying different coaches and combinations and maybe I will get lucky before they fire me"Tennessee replaced Fulmer with one clown after another...after anotherLSU replaced Saban with Miles, who finally spent all of the money daddy left him...and then hired Orgeron. WTH were they thinking? Vanderbilt replaced Franklin with...a typical Vanderbilt coach. Now they are a typical Vanderbilt squad

The reason the SEC is down is that it has lost so many outstanding coaches and replaced them with...well, you fill in the blank.

Florida lost Urban Meyer and is on their second mediocre coach since he leftSouth Carolina replaced Spurrier with Boom MFer, whose next decent QB and offense will be his firstArkansas replaced Petrino with first John L. Smith and then "I'll just keep trying different coaches and combinations and maybe I will get lucky before they fire me"Tennessee replaced Fulmer with one clown after another...after anotherLSU replaced Saban with Miles, who finally spent all of the money daddy left him...and then hired Orgeron. WTH were they thinking? Vanderbilt replaced Franklin with...a typical Vanderbilt coach. Now they are a typical Vanderbilt squad

the attack in general on the game of football itself, which is leading to pillow fight practices,

I am on the field calling 2 or 3 nights a week, and I can tell you there is still plenty of hitting going on. This misguided thought that just because they are trying to take to headhunting out of football that football is no longer tough is just as wrong as wrong can be.

I listened to this podcast and Danielson had a pretty good theory. A lot of teams over the last few years have been looking for a way to beat Bama and tried following the Manziel/dual threat/scrambling making plays type QB and offense. Because of that those same teams have lost physicality and even though that type of QB and offense may give Bama trouble it can hurt you throughout the season because you rely too much on finesse and not knocking people off the line of scrimmage. Kirby Smart told him you have to run the football to win not only because it helps your offense but it helps your defense to practice that way and be physical. He also said LSU just doesn't have the players and let Troy beat them physically up front. Maybe Bielema has the right idea but just can't get it to work due to lack of quality lineman? I still think the dual threat QB helps you on offense with the threat of the run but you have to get a push up front.

I think there is truth in this. I think Bielema's system works fine IF you have the "hosses" to do it. The problem is that I dont think Bielema was ready for the speed that is in the SEC. Now that Urban and Harbaugh are in the Big 10 racking up top 5-10 recruiting classes, speed is coming to the Big 10 but when BB was having his success in the Big 10, he had huge offensive linemen and they could get a push on the smaller and not as fast Big 10 defenders.

Fast forward to BB in the SEC and he learned right quick that there is a reason they say speed kills--because it does. BB's massive OLs were rendered somewhat mediocre by the quicker, faster and stronger SEC defenders. How many times have we been down in the red zone needing just 1 yard for a score and had more than 1 try at it and could not get it done. I can remember having 4 or 5 cracks at in in the A$M game last season down at the goal line and we simply could not get a push. The quicker, faster defenders simply got AROUND the big OLinemen and were waiting for RB in the backfield. It happened in the Ole Miss game a couple of years ago. Missouri and their quick defensive linemen could simply go around mammoth but slow offensive linemen like Dan Skipper et al. Raekwon Davis of Alabama (from Meridian MS) is 6-7, 306 lbs and can run a QB down from his defensive lineman position. That is just about unfair. BB has no one that can come close to blocking somebody like that.

This is why it comes back to recruiting. I have posted this on here before. Fitz Hill was on sports radio after the TCU loss and he summed it up perfectly when asked to critique Gary Patterson and how he recruits. Fitz said that the big elite programs like Bama, Georgia, Auburn, Ohio State, etc recruit 5 star football players, but Patterson recruits 5 star ATHLETES. They may not be quite as big as the others, but they are fast and they are strong plus his strength and conditioning coach builds their strength even more. And then Patterson and his staff DEVELOP the athlete to play the way they want him to play. Said Patterson knows he cannot out recruit Bama or Texas or OU and the like for the elite 5 star HS players, so he gets the best athletes he can and coaches them up. And that is exactly what we saw in the TCU game. Those players were stronger and faster than ARK's players and they were well coached. They might not have been as big but they made up for it with quickness and strength.

BB knows football. Im sure he does, but he simply has not been able to consistently recruit the type of player on both lines of scrimmage along with LBs and defensive secondary players that it takes to win in the SEC. His record shows it plain as day.

Good post Memphis. Patterson is known for recruiting guys and then moving them to other positions that best help the team. He has done a great job at TCU.

It's funny we talk about our OL under performing and there are so many schools with the same issue. SCarolina, FSU, Northwestern, USC and many more all having OL troubles. FSU is always a top recruiting program and top 10 team so what is the issue finding and developing quality OL? Does not matter how good your RBs are if no one can block fore them. And QBs are running for their life due to lack of OL protection. That's where that athletic type QB can really help you. Wake Forest had 17 tackles for loss last week against FSU because they cannot block anyone.

Ole Miss had first round draft picks on the OL and DL. They played physical football. Maybe not as physical as Bama themselves, but still physical football.

Ole Miss is in more excrement than a man standing in a Mexican bat cave full of guano. But at least they tried, gotta give them that much credit. As far as playing physical football and running the ball, nobody did it better than Arkansas with triplets from 2005 to 2007. Matter of fact, we've always been able to run the ball in the SEC. This is going to hurt to say and is going to sound like sand paper on a chalkboard, but Hootie piece meal an effective O line most of the time he was building his NC. Running on the SEC has never really been a problem when the UA has set their minds to do so.

Ole Miss is in more excrement than a man standing in a Mexican bat cave full of guano. But at least they tried, gotta give them that much credit. As far as playing physical football and running the ball, nobody did it better than Arkansas with triplets from 2005 to 2007. Matter of fact, we've always been able to run the ball in the SEC. This is going to hurt to say and is going to sound like sand paper on a chalkboard, but Hootie piece meal an effective O line most of the time he was building his NC. Running on the SEC has never really been a problem when the UA has set their minds to do so.

There is no evidence to support his theory. The only teams to beat Bama in conference lately have been up tempo, spread the field teams (Auburn, Ole Miss twice and almost a third time). Clemson almost beat Saban two years ago and did beat him last year. Oklahoma did the same in the Sugar Bowl a few years ago.

Meanwhile, no one but Ohio State has lined up and overpowered Bama. We always talk about the talent LSU can recruit, but they have become irrelevant playing power football.

You obviously didn't understand he said exactly what you did about beating Bama. His opinion is he thought because of focus on beating Bama the programs went softer which was a mistake.

I am on the field calling 2 or 3 nights a week, and I can tell you there is still plenty of hitting going on. This misguided thought that just because they are trying to take to headhunting out of football that football is no longer tough is just as wrong as wrong can be.

The reason the SEC is down is that it has lost so many outstanding coaches and replaced them with...well, you fill in the blank.

Florida lost Urban Meyer and is on their second mediocre coach since he leftSouth Carolina replaced Spurrier with Boom MFer, whose next decent QB and offense will be his firstArkansas replaced Petrino with first John L. Smith and then "I'll just keep trying different coaches and combinations and maybe I will get lucky before they fire me"Tennessee replaced Fulmer with one clown after another...after anotherLSU replaced Saban with Miles, who finally spent all of the money daddy left him...and then hired Orgeron. WTH were they thinking? Vanderbilt replaced Franklin with...a typical Vanderbilt coach. Now they are a typical Vanderbilt squad

Had this exact conversation a couple weeks ago.

Every school that has had a coaching change since Saban's hiring has gone the wrong direction having hired an inferior coach. The only exceptions have been Miss. St. and seeing that Mullen's been there 8 or 9 years they're the exception and the next coach will probably be a step backward.

The other exception was us when we replaced Nutt with Petrino but since that awful April's Fools joke we've been sliding backwards.

Georgia replaced Richt w/ Kirby Smart and he'll benefit from a very down SEC East but he's nowhere near the coach that Richt is.

The coaching talent in the SEC right now is just plain pitiful and our guy constantly gets out-coached and out-worked on the recruiting trail. Gonna be a long time til 2020.

Arkansas' problem since joining the SEC is that for the vast majority of the years we haven't come close to fielding a top shelf defense. Just one year with the talent that JFB recruited and left for Lou's first year, we'd beat Alabama, run the table in the SEC and likely win the National Championship. However, we haven't come even remotely close to fielding a defense like the Hogs fielded in 1977. If we ever do, whomever the coach may be at the time will actually give us something we've never had, an SEC Championship in football.

It's not necessarily a dual threat QB although that helps. It's the combination of a QB that keeps his offense on the field enough to wear Bama's D down. The good D shortens Bama's time of possession thus putting Bama's D back on the field.